Hacker News Reader

Comment by forkandwait | Hacker News Reader

My rule is this : if I have equity then I am family. No equity, I am just an employee.

What about if your equity is in stock-options that haven't been exercised, and after you leave you only have 90 days to exercise them? :)

An option isn't equity. It is, by tautology, an option to purchase equity.

By and large, options are just a symbolic gesture. I'm sure there are some people who've reaped a bounty from them... but it's exceeding rare, and even if everything goes right they still require a liquidity event that isn't guaranteed to include you.

The first couple of times I got stock options, I exercised them... and ended up using them as a tax write-off later when they became worthless. Now, I sit on them like an old comic book that might become valuable someday... and wouldn't think twice about letting them disappear if I change jobs.

An option isn't equity, but I would wager that a lot of people who subscribe to the "if I have equity I'm family" model are naive enough to not know that.

I definitely agree with your attitude on them, I really wish startup culture didn't frown upon electing to receive higher salary and no equity.

Some startups take your equity off you if you leave.

Or push you out to claw back the equity they granted.

They can't just take away equity that's vested to you. And any equity that hasn't vested isn't yours.

The shares are yours, but the company reserves the right to buy them back at the lower of the current price and price you paid for them, which it does when you leave.

http://stockoptioncounsel.com/blog/standards-ownership-canth...

Why are you saying something like it is always true when it is only true given a certain clause is present? It says right in your link that that's only possible when your employment contract says it's possible. Seems dishonest of you.

I never saw anything like this when I worked at an early stage startup, and it's obviously something an employee who reads their employment agreement would ask to be taken out. I'd never work at a company with that clause.

>>> "Some startups"

This is necessary for stock options to work properly. The whole point is to make sure people want to stay and make a profitable company, not that they ditch the instant the stock passes some threshold.

On the other hand, this can lead to disaffected employees who are only staying with the job because they are waiting for their options to mature.

so, the way stock options work properly is that you can work to build a company, and if management blows the revenue, or fires you a month before exit, you get nothing of value out of it?

They can't take it away arbitrarily, but unless you're in a good personal financial position there's a good chance you'll lose it anyway.

Most stock options expire within a few months after separation. And, if the present valuation is high, the one separated will have to come up with the cash to buy the options and pay the alternative minimum tax. If the company is private and uncooperative, they can sometimes effectively prevent you from exercising your vested options.

To clarify your comment for other readers: stock options and equity are not the same, and are handled differently upon termination.

If they have a call option on your stock (read your agreement), they're still not "yours". And it's for a private company you have no control over and probably no anti-dilution clauses on either.

Sounds like the kind of relatives you avoid...

A grant is a contract. Like any contract, YES it can be broken but think of the ramifications.

Would anyone join that company going forward? Would they be able to raise money from investors? Would their attorney drop them?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com